Don't try to tell the man which map and settings he's allowed to play. As long as he plays public games, and that these doesn't attract tons of ?'s, and he doesn't foe all the good players on that map, it's madness to say what he does is immoral or even worse, cheating. Not all immoral ways to play are cheating, and this is not even an immoral way to play! He likes one map, fine, he likes to see how many points he can get, fine, he doesn't play a ton of newbies or very low ranked players, fine, he doesn't hunt down users trying to persuade them to join his games, fine, he doesn't foe all the good players, fine. It's not forbidden to be successful playing only one map you know. If GLG tried to gain points the way stoicbird has, what he did would be alright! But he did foe the good players, he did persuade low ranked players to join his games, and he played a lot of these low ranked players. A glance at stoicbird's list of games played reveals that he plays majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, corporals, privates, cadets, cooks. A bit more cooks than average joins his games but the same can be said for majors. Actually way more majors than cooks join his games. He's not selecting his opponents and his opponents are on average not that overly low ranked.He's won 68% of the games played with these settings on that map, if he's farming what then is my 73% on Das Schloss?

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

Gillipig wrote:Don't try to tell the man which map and settings he's allowed to play. As long as he plays public games, and that these doesn't attract tons of ?'s, and he doesn't foe all the good players on that map, it's madness to say what he does is immoral or even worse, cheating. Not all immoral ways to play are cheating, and this is not even an immoral way to play! He likes one map, fine, he likes to see how many points he can get, fine, he doesn't play a ton of newbies or very low ranked players, fine, he doesn't hunt down users trying to persuade them to join his games, fine, he doesn't foe all the good players, fine. It's not forbidden to be successful playing only one map you know. If GLG tried to gain points the way stoicbird has, what he did would be alright! But he did foe the good players, he did persuade low ranked players to join his games, and he played a lot of these low ranked players. A glance at stoicbird's list of games played reveals that he plays majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, corporals, privates, cadets, cooks. A bit more cooks than average joins his games but the same can be said for majors. Actually way more majors than cooks join his games. He's not selecting his opponents and his opponents are on average not that overly low ranked.He's won 68% of the games played with these settings on that map, if he's farming what then is my 73% on Das Schloss?

Eh?My point was just that conquerors are not really that superior strat-wise than your average "good" player.

Gillipig wrote:Don't try to tell the man which map and settings he's allowed to play. As long as he plays public games, and that these doesn't attract tons of ?'s, and he doesn't foe all the good players on that map, it's madness to say what he does is immoral or even worse, cheating. Not all immoral ways to play are cheating, and this is not even an immoral way to play! He likes one map, fine, he likes to see how many points he can get, fine, he doesn't play a ton of newbies or very low ranked players, fine, he doesn't hunt down users trying to persuade them to join his games, fine, he doesn't foe all the good players, fine. It's not forbidden to be successful playing only one map you know. If GLG tried to gain points the way stoicbird has, what he did would be alright! But he did foe the good players, he did persuade low ranked players to join his games, and he played a lot of these low ranked players. A glance at stoicbird's list of games played reveals that he plays majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, corporals, privates, cadets, cooks. A bit more cooks than average joins his games but the same can be said for majors. Actually way more majors than cooks join his games. He's not selecting his opponents and his opponents are on average not that overly low ranked.He's won 68% of the games played with these settings on that map, if he's farming what then is my 73% on Das Schloss?

Eh?My point was just that conquerors are not really that superior strat-wise than your average "good" player.

Are you the only one who has posted something in this thread funky? If I didn't quote you, you don't have to automatically assume I'm referring to you. I know you don't actually read most of the posts in a thread you post in, but if you went back and checked, you'd see that I was most likely not talking to you. Now I'm talking to you, see the difference?

Last edited by Gillipig on Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

qwert wrote:well i dont see nothing special , because i defeat 3 former conqueror. These guys are not immortals, and you only play once against these two.

That's better mate. So you've beat 5 but how many losses do you have and what's your win %? That's what this thread was about I thought, not which map I prefer to play but I'm easy.

well if you want to have real picture against former conquerors, then you need to play quite large number of games, not just one game,and that these call 100% succes. I play over 20 games, and mine score not great.When you play more then 1 game,then you post here and present real %.

Gillipig wrote:Are you the only one who has posted something in this thread funky? If I didn't quote you, you don't have to automatically assume I'm referring to you. I know you don't actually read most of the posts in a thread you post in, but if you went back and checked, you'd see that I was most likely not talking to you. Now I'm talking to you, see the difference?

It's pretty much assumed that if you don't specify who your post is directed at, it's the person who posted just previously.